API-get-self

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('retrieve') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information: platform (Notion), action (retrieve), and resource (bot user). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by specifying the tool's unique scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple zero-parameter design, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the bot user data includes, how it's returned, or any side effects. For a tool that likely returns user identity information, more context on the response structure or use cases would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Notion | Retrieve your token's bot user' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (bot user) with platform context (Notion). It distinguishes from siblings like API-get-user or API-get-users by specifying 'bot user' rather than general users. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., token authentication), use cases (e.g., verifying bot identity), or exclusions (e.g., not for retrieving human users). With siblings like API-get-user available, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.